[hokum]

---

EW play transfers, but when East alerted West's transfer to spades, West said "Oh".
East paused for twenty seconds then bid 3NT and made ten tricks. What is your ruling?

[Cyberyeti]

What's the agreement about 3N ? (we use it for 4 card support)

If 3N is not their normal bid in this sequence then EW are going to lose this one (4♠-1 although if jurisdiction allows, with a bit of 4♠=, S has an awkward lead problem).

[billw55]

West must bid on as though he still thinks that 3♥ was natural. In this case, 3NT still seems like the only sensible bid, so that is ok.

But it seems east used the UI in choosing not to bid 4♠. So, adjust result to 4♠ down. Also I think east deserves a PP if not a beginner.

[campboy]

I assume the auction was

---

as OP says West bid 3NT, not East.

There is certainly nothing wrong with West's 3NT. The problem is that East passed 3NT with 4-card support for the suit West has shown, using the unauthorised information from West's "oh". I agree with Cyberyeti about the adjustment, and would give a PP unless East is very inexperienced, assuming the auction was as above.

[edit] I posted only having seen a previous version of Billw's post. Now I agree with him too

[helene_t]

Did E bid 3♠ first ? Well he must have if W really bid 3NT, just wondering. It is vagualy possible that 3NT shows a super-accept and that they could get away with it, if it was East that bid 3NT.

Otherwise, adjust to 4♠-2 or some such, and a PP to East.

[TylerE]

IMO PP to east even if he IS a beginner. Doesn't get much more blatant than this.

[billw55]

TylerE, on 2015-April-21, 07:34, said:

IMO PP to east even if he IS a beginner. Doesn't get much more blatant than this.

I think that if this is east's first encounter with a UI ruling, then an adjusted score and gentle lecture is sufficient. But otherwise, yeah, PP for sure.

Out of curiosity, do directors, clubs, or NBOs keep track of PPs for this sort of thing? With an eye to increased penalties for subsequent offenses.

[helene_t]

I have never played in a tournament or a club where any PPs were given to my knowledge. I wouldn't be surprised if none of our local club TDs, maybe even some of the TDs of regional tourneys here, have never heard about the posibility.

[ArtK78]

East's pass of 3NT is really egregious. I am not a fan of PPs, especially in club games. But if there was ever a case for one, it would be this one.

[billw55]

ArtK78, on 2015-April-21, 08:20, said:

East's pass of 3NT is really egregious. I am not a fan of PPs, especially in club games. But if there was ever a case for one, it would be this one.

In this respect and other, I draw a strong distinction between clubs and tournaments. In clubs, things are largely social and PPs rarely appropriate. In a tournament, willful offenses should be strongly sanctioned IMO.

From comments here over a few years now, I get the impression that many (most?) clubs have a small number of repeat offenders, especially regarding UI issues. My own direct experience supports this. What would happen if clubs did start giving out PPs? Would it be a big customer loser? Or not? I wonder.

[gordontd]

billw55, on 2015-April-21, 07:19, said:

West must bid on as though he still thinks that 3♥ was natural. In this case, 3NT still seems like the only sensible bid, so that is ok.

I don't think so. Those who play 3H as natural would usually play 3S as a cue-bid raise, showing heart support. So I think West should be bidding 4C. East will now bid further and they may well reach 6S before the smoke clears.

Actually, depending on the timing of the comment, I think East's initial 3S bid may be suggested by the UI and he should be doing more - 4D perhaps.

[billw55]

gordontd, on 2015-April-21, 09:19, said:

I don't think so. Those who play 3H as natural would usually play 3S as a cue-bid raise, showing heart support. So I think West should be bidding 4C. East will now bid further and they may well reach 6S before the smoke clears.

Actually, depending on the timing of the comment, I think East's initial 3S bid may be suggested by the UI and he should be doing more - 4D perhaps.

Er, what? The actual agreement is that 3♥ is a transfer to spades, and you want east to bid something other than 3♠? Note he only has 19 for his 2NT opening (although range was not specified).

I see your points about 3NT though. Anyway, all roads lead to an adjustment and probable large loss at any scoring.

[blackshoe]

billw55, on 2015-April-21, 08:55, said:

In this respect and other, I draw a strong distinction between clubs and tournaments. In clubs, things are largely social and PPs rarely appropriate. In a tournament, willful offenses should be strongly sanctioned IMO.

From comments here over a few years now, I get the impression that many (most?) clubs have a small number of repeat offenders, especially regarding UI issues. My own direct experience supports this. What would happen if clubs did start giving out PPs? Would it be a big customer loser? Or not? I wonder.

Only way to tell is to start issuing them and see what happens. The player who habitually uses UI might /ragequit, but the people who've been bitten by his tendencies are likely to be happy. I suspect that on balance a director or club owner who is seen to fairly and evenly apply the laws, including procedural penalties, will find that his players appreciate that. At least, they will once they get used to the idea.

Law 73C is a "must" law. Law 16B1 is a "may not" law. In both cases the wording indicates that violation is "a serious matter indeed", more serious than offenses which "will incur a procedural penalty more often than not". So I think a PP is virtually required here, in spite of the cultural bias against them. That said, I might cut an absolute newbie some slack. Once.

[helene_t]

billw55, on 2015-April-21, 10:25, said:

Er, what? The actual agreement is that 3♥ is a transfer to spades, and you want east to bid something other than 3♠?

No. Gordon wants w to interpret 3S as whatever it would mean after a natural 3h bid. That is obviously correct.

[billw55]

helene_t, on 2015-April-21, 10:53, said:

No. Gordon wants w to interpret 3S as whatever it would mean after a natural 3h bid. That is obviously correct.

Yes, I got that part.

[gordontd]

billw55, on 2015-April-21, 10:25, said:

Er, what? The actual agreement is that 3♥ is a transfer to spades, and you want east to bid something other than 3♠? Note he only has 19 for his 2NT opening (although range was not specified).

If I had the East hand and we were playing transfers I would rebid 4D over 3H. If I had the West hand and we weren't playing transfers I would rebid 4C over 3S. I don't think either of those things is unusual.

[Cyberyeti]

Sorry, I missed that a bid was left out, our auction would indeed be 2N-3♥-3N(4 spades minimum)-P(W has to bid ignoring the alert and can't really do anything else).

after 2N-3♥-3♠-3N- 4♠ is beyond obvious.

[hokum]

billw55, on 2015-April-21, 07:19, said:

West must bid on as though he still thinks that 3♥ was natural. In this case, 3NT still seems like the only sensible bid, so that is ok.

But it seems east used the UI in choosing not to bid 4♠. So, adjust result to 4♠ down. Also I think east deserves a PP if not a beginner.

My apologies Bill for a typo in the auction (fixed) - East bid 3NT!

[Cyberyeti]

hokum, on 2015-April-22, 01:43, said:

My apologies Bill for a typo in the auction (fixed) - East bid 3NT!

And when asked, what did he say 3N meant (or why did he bid that) ?

[RMB1]

It is just possible that 3NT is the systemic transfer break but I would rule that 3♠ and 4♦ were logical alternatives.
Both East and West have unauthorised information and I do not think the auction should stop below 6♠, for example:

- - 2NT -
3♥ - 4♦ (values with spade support) -
4♥ (no spade control, with hearts agreed) - 4NT (RKCB for spades) -
5♥ (A + K of hearts, with hearts agreed) - 6♠ -
6NT (?)- Pass

6NT -2